And what if my answer is that I haven’t yet formed hard-and-fast rules for what they “should” be, beyond a few general guidelines, while we’re still discussing it? I am, after all, trying to keep an open mind and give you a chance to persuade me. It would be dishonest of me to do that if I’d already made up my mind, wouldn’t it?
That would be inadequate.
Post what Social Corps would be, as shown in CCP patch notes, as you would best propose it now.
I cant persuade you either way, till you show what you want, as I asked for above, and I delivered earlier for you.
Stop playing games, and post what you would launch Social Corps as so we can see it and discuss it.
Well, at the moment I’m on my phone in the waiting room of my vascular surgeon, and I already said I’ll lay it out as best I can when I get back to the keyboard. Have a little patience, hmm? Call it two or three hours.
Thats fine. There is no urgency. Just that you deliver, as you demanded of me to, which I did.
Post how you would launch Social Corps, as it would be in patch notes.
That is all I ask.
PS: Good luck on your heart results.
One of the best posts on this board explaining that aspect of a social corporation. Wish we could email it to all those involved with EVE (devs,too).
Vascular, not cardiovascular. Circulatory issues happen in other places, too. 
1 Like
Good luck and health, either way.
But I still expect a patch note style rendition of your view of Social Corp for launch.
I remind you of this quote from you:
CCP were warned that they were making them too good in terms of yield, they then scaled it back and of course gave the Goons a leg up, though in saying that the Goons made their space safe enough to use them effectively. But it made catching them up so much harder, but that is Eve. But some will give it a go, Test have not been slouches either, and my alliance too.
What sort of content are you talking about, I certainly see the doomsday fight over a Keepstar interesting content, though the issue on TiDi made it more of an ordeal, but I know some people who were there and they loved it.
I have found people keen to throw caps around, that is a benefit, though I hope that CCP does not remove insurance from dreads because if we do go to end game total dominance that is one way to hurt the Imperium within your means if you are locked out of better space.
The content of them being immobile in space while their indy core is on, the PANIC module, their tank, cyno inhibs, it is fun content, a properly fit one is a swine to take down, but it is a challenge and that is a key part of it.
Have they, this is not the same as the Chinese server, remember they were all locked into one TZ, this is not the case with this server. I think they way to dominate Eve is to remove all your enemies and potential enemies Keepstars, build your own to control the entire map and then have a cache of Titans, Supers, carriers, dreads, FAX’s and subcaps ready to go with everyone having JC’s That is dominance of the end game, but does not mean they control the whole game.
I wondered if the Imperium pulling back from the north was partially not to destroy their enemies, however their enemies have largely destroyed themselves, or that is more to do with the Imperiums artful backbone and the lazy attitude of their enemies. They said that it was to prevent burn out of FC’s and leadership and there is truth in that.
So from that point of view nullsec is in a position where the Imperium looks like they cannot lose, however people said the same in terms of them when they were up north. Though I think the Imperium is far stronger now.
I am happy to see nullsec take it’s course as directed by the players, however I do not think the same way about hisec. Because of this it is vital that CCP look to develop the other areas of the game and I see hisec as a more controlled area where CCP needs to take a more nuanced look at game balance. It should not be the same as nullsec where you leave certain entities to totally dominate and destroy their enemies.
The reason I am focussed on the Propaganda structure is that the simple fact of leaving the war decker to have such control over the other side in terms of the war dec creates a feeling hopelessness and injustice within the hisec player base. If I blow up a number of war deckers ships will I be war decked forever by one of their alt corps? Without anyway to force an end to the war they are pulling my strings in hisec. So players of course have worked out that not logging in is the best way.
I like the war dec system, but the inability for the defender to fight to end the war is a major issue. That is why I wanted to make it punitive in terms of war decking the wrong people who may blow up multiple Propaganda structures.
I listened to that pod cast for a laugh and I know what you were doing, I debriefed a number of your victims. 
And yes they accept the duel under desperation, but I already told you that in a thread somewhere.
By the way I understand that I am featured on the Minerbumping website for suggesting that people petition gankers being multi-boxed who jump at the same time, and I said in the AG chat that they had to make a judgement on whether they think it was cheating or not. I knew what I meant by that, but the gankers did not. And no I have not read it…
Last night I came across about 8 or 9 ganker pods who jumped with me, the first time they jumped all together, which made me laugh, but at the next gate they jumped in groups of three. That system was a short warp, so if they had actually all jumped together, I would have been suspicious. But anyway, I just say that as an amused story about the gankers once again missing the obvious in their eagerness to attack me personally. I found it highly amusing just how stupid the gankers made themselves look.
They are laughing at you, not with you.
But I am laughing at them for once again over doing it, it is hilarious.
Fleet jump.
I dont get what you think is funny about this.
Now you are being funny.
Edit: Sorry but I have to ask you if you know that there is no way as an FC to make your fleet jump the gate. If there is then I will have learnt something today and proved myself utterly ignorant, but I doubt that…
EDIT: I am talking about multi-boxers mate not fleet mates, do you ever read anything fully before jumping in with both feet. But I guess that is an easy way to get out of the trap you got yourself in…
EDIT: Stop trolling 
How so?
Its not hard to amass a fleet at a gate and jump through.
There is. Shout “Jump, Jump, Jump” on comms.
There is no way you can know the difference.
Ok, so, while I do this, first I’d like to point out that it gets a lot easier for me to answer the questions you have in response to me if, you know, you post those questions as part of your response. For example, if you’d included “can you describe what you think a Social Corp would allow?” in the reply where you answered my questions, then I could’ve included all of this in my response to that post. You see? And trust me, there will be questions for you at the end of this one. 
Ok, so, back to what it is you’re looking for:
In order to properly comply with your formatting requirements, I’ll be using these patch notes as the template. Specifically, I’ll be using the part that deals with the OCTOBER 2018 RELEASE 1.0 > Features and Changes > Balancing section.
PATCH NOTES FOR GOD KNOWS WHEN RELEASE 1.0
RELEASED ON PROBABLY THE DAY BEFORE THE PATCH BECAUSE WHY NOT?
Features & Changes:
Balancing:
- Social Corporations have been added to the game! For full details see this Dev Blog.[1]
Ok, but being a little more serious about it, since I know you’ll complain about having to open up another document and actually read… here’s the text of the linked faux devblog:
I did promise questions, so…[2]
- C’mon, you gotta admit, that’s pretty funny. Anyway, the link itself does contain a google doc where I’ve presented a way social corps could work, IMO. Having it in a link also makes it easier for people to reference if they want to bring it back up later, throw it to CCP, or write a 7,000 word article on INN about the wardec issues and potential solutions and I totally am not in the middle of that right now but give me maybe an hour and I might be… shut up.
Oh, and it’s commentable, so feedback can go right there on the document. - THE QUESTIONS!
2a. Why should HS groups that want to do the ‘social corp’ thing have to be stuck in HS, and stuck doing PvE, without being able to try new things unless they abandon their friends?
2b. What specific benefit, over and above achieving the goals of Social Corps, do you see being gained by restricting them to HS?
3 Likes
Its not funny at all, nor what I asked for.
It’s exactly what you asked for. You wanted it laid out like the patch notes. That was literally quoted from the patch notes, with the relevant lines of text edited from ‘Target Jamming mechanics have undergone significant changes’ to ‘Social Corporations have been added to the game!’
But you’ll notice I anticipated your grumpiness, so I included the text here. 
2 Likes
Couple of questions:
-
The limit of 100 is arbitrary , but I do see the need to set a limit. How was the number 100 chosen as the cut off? (I would think that more social corps would be 20- )
-
Why the restrictions on deployable structures? I understand the warp disruptor, but both the depot and MTU restrictions greatly restrict a social corp from reaching out and trying something new like travel fits,WH,etc. MTU restriction greatly negatively influence mission runners ( LARGE part of a likely social corp) and reduces content creation for other pilots both in and out of a social corp (see killboards and all the MTU kills). In fact, MTU hunting could be considered a gateway activity to full fledged PvP; why reduce that opportunity?
It isnt.
This contradicts others here saying they would be like NPC Corps, except with a Tag of their own.
It also opens Social Corps to abuse by suicide gankers, pirates, and LS/NS/WH.
That’s nice. I’m not others. You asked what I thought they should be.
Well, you asked for…
And I literally quoted the patch notes and edited 1 line of text (and the release name/date).
So would you like to tell me why the patch notes aren’t ‘patch note style’ or ‘as in the patch notes’? Or can you just move on to addressing the substance of it?
Again, you asked what I thought they should be. Not what I thought you wanted them to be. I don’t see any reason not to allow those things. I’m asking you, in fact, specifically why CCP shouldn’t. Now, I’ve answered your question. Answer the ones I posed. I’ll even repost them again:
Why should HS groups that want to do the ‘social corp’ thing have to be stuck in HS, and stuck doing PvE, without being able to try new things unless they abandon their friends?
What specific benefit , over and above achieving the goals of Social Corps, do you see being gained by restricting them to HS?
2 Likes
Heresy!
I thought you were me but now it turns out you grew a conscience :o